Vol. 318 No. 2
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement outlining in detail the Government's attitude to Moscow as the venue for the 1980 Olympic Games and their response to President Carter's proposal that, in the event of Soviet troops not being withdrawn from Afghanistan, the games be transferred or cancelled for this year.
18.
andMr. Quinn asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government have received a formal request from the United States for an assurance that Irish athletes will not participate in the Olympic Games to be held in Moscow in 1980, if so, the Government response to that request and if he will make a statement on the matter.
19.
andMr. Quinn asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has had contact, formal or informal, with Lord Killanin, Chairperson of the International Olympic Committee in relation to the proposed boycott of the Moscow Olympics by some Western nations, if so, if the Government have formally or informally indicated their attitude to such a proposal to Lord Killanin and if he will make a statement on the matter.
20.
andMr. Quinn asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government favour the transfer of the Olympics from Moscow to an alternative venue, if the United States or any other Government have requested the Irish Government's support for such a transfer and if he will make a statement on the matter.
21.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will clarify the Government's attitude to Irish participation in the forthcoming Olympic Games, and if a boycott of the games is favoured at this point in time.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 to 21 together.
The Taoiseach, together with other Heads of Government, has received a message from the President of the United States, regarding the Olympic Games.
A reply to President Carter's message is being kept under careful consideration by the Government. The matter has been considered by the Foreign Ministers of the Nine on three recent occasions with a view to seeing whether a common policy can be arrived at, and at our recent meeting on 19 February it was decided that we should continue with these consultations. Ireland has of course made clear its position of principle on the substantive issues involved in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by stressing, both bilaterally to the USSR and in statements made by the Foreign Ministers of the Nine, our serious concern at the Soviet action which amounts to a flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.
I have had no contact formal or informal with Lord Killanin, Chairperson of the International Olympic Committee, in relation to the proposed boycott of the Moscow Olympics.
Would the Minister give an indication in response to the questions on the Order Paper, what is the Government's attitude to the call for a boycott?
Our attitude in regard to that matter is the same as the attitude of a number of our EEC partners and it is this: at present there is no need to make a definitive decision. There is a deadline of 24 May before the specific application to compete in the games must be received by the Moscow authorities. At their meeting on Tuesday all of the Community countries, including Ireland, agreed to reserve our position for the time being to see whether there would be any cooling of the situation in Afghanistan. As a contribution towards inching forward towards some peace in that country we as a Community put forward a proposal unanimously to introduce in effect neutralisation of Afghanistan and to have Afghanistan's neutral status guaranteed by neighbouring countries and by the United Nations. We have set up a committee of experts to examine the ways and means by which that could be done. I understand that the US Government are interested in some progress along these lines. This initiative has been taken to fill a political vacuum in Afghanistan.
Already refused.
That is a TASS Report this morning and it is the first reaction, but we hope that we can work towards some solution along those lines. It is interesting to note that 25 years ago almost to the day a similar solution was reached in Austria when the Russian forces withdrew from there. Austria still remains in a state of neutrality with the guarantees of the four major powers of the Soviet Union, US, France and Britain.
Something along those lines is what is envisaged and we hope to see some progress. The Community, including ourselves, would prefer a more gradual response to what has happened in Afghanistan, because it is important to preserve detente. We do not believe in any heavy response at this stage. A cooling down period is what is needed. If there were evidence of bona fide on the part of Russia in Afghanistan, there would be a new situation. Another new situation would be created if a large number of countries follow the lead taken by the United States since yesterday by recommending a boycott of the games to their national Olympic authorities. In that situation the games would be a futile exercise because a great part of the world would have refused to take part in them. At this stage these are all imponderables and all the Community countries take the view that we should reserve our decision and await developments especially since there is no need to come to a definitive conclusion before 24 May.
It is clear that in this House neither the Government nor the Minister are prepared to admit to any policy, if they have a policy. Is the Minister aware that there was a report in the Irish Independent today that eight of the nine EEC Foreign Ministers, excluding France and therefore by inference including Ireland, spoke in favour of a boycott of the Moscow Olympics?
That report is totally inaccurate. There were far more accurate reports in all three daily papers on Wednesday.
All of Wednesday's issues of our four national papers carried accurate reports. The report which appeared in this morning's Irish Independent is totally inaccurate.
Does the Minister's statement on Government policy in relation to the Olympics just given to this House supercede the positive statement that we would attend the Olympics made by the Minister of State at the Department of Education? Is Government policy on attendance at the Olympics in Moscow dependent not on any principle but on what other countries decide to join the US boycott?
It makes the utmost commonsense for civilised countries such as Ireland and our European colleagues to hasten slowly in this matter. It is a classical case of festina lente. It is not a case for rushing in like a bull in a china shop. Our stance has been excellent and we will proceed to harmonise that stance with the other European countries within the Community.
What stance?
The Minister is throwing Deputy Tunney to the wolves. Deputy Tunney said that we should go to Moscow, that we are going to Moscow.
But the Minister says that he is now not sure, that there is no principle involved, that it depends, that we want to be on the winning side no matter what principle is involved.
Of course, we should go to Moscow if there is a meaningful Olympic Games in Moscow, but there is no point in going to Moscow if threequarters of the world is not going to Moscow. Surely the Deputy sees that. We must see how the situation emerges over the immediate period ahead before we can come to a realistic conclusion.
The only reason why three-quarters of the worlds countries will not go to Moscow would be if three-quarters of the world's Governments reacted like this one.
This Government are reacting in a very mature manner. We are not coming down one way or the other; we are reserving our decision pending developments.
Did the Minister not say a moment ago that of course we should go to Moscow?
If meaningful games are taking place.
The only reservation the Minister and the Government have is that if a situation develops in which the games are useless——
Yes.
But the Government, in principle, have made the decision that we should go to Moscow and that whether to go or not would be a decision for the athletes concerned without any direction from this Government other than to go?
In the last analysis in a liberal democratic State like ours it is a matter for the National Olympic Council. We cannot prevent people from going to Moscow or anywhere else. We can advise, but that is all.
The Minister's advice, enunciated just a few moments ago, is that of course we should go to Moscow.
We should go to Moscow if meaningful games are taking place and if there is an attitude on the part of the Soviet Union in regard to Afghanistan that indicates bona fide on the part of the Soviet Union.
As far as meaningful games are concerned——
——that is a matter for the athletic authorities. The principle and the politics of it is that the Government are saying through the Minister here now——
This is developing into an argument.
We have five questions together here.
The Government position at the moment is that our position is reserved.
The Government have no position; it is that simple.
It is the same position as that held by eight other responsible states in the Community. All nine countries made a decision on Tuesday to take a political initiative and we have reserved our positions. That is the decision taken by all of our eight partners.
This statement was made at the end of our meeting on Tuesday by the President of the Council of Ministers on behalf of all nine countries.
I am totally confused. Less than five minutes ago the Minister said that the Government's advice is that we should go to Moscow——
I did not say that.
——and that the only reason that we should not go is if the games are not large enough to make them meaningful. The political situation and the athletic benefit of going are two different things. Can we take it that the Minister's statement of about three minutes ago, that we should go to Moscow, is the political advice of the Government on their assessment?
No.
Then what is it?
We as a Government, along with eight other member countries of the EEC, have reserved our position pending the Russian attitude in Afghanistan as it emerges in the weeks and months ahead and depending on whether or not there will be meaningful games. In the event of the Russian attitude improving, which should lead to meaningful games, we will have no objection to an Irish Olympic team proceeding to Moscow, but it is only in that context.
If it does not improve?
Meaningful games have no part in this.
Question No. 22.
It is the Irish Olympic Committee that make the assessment regarding the games.
Order, please. We are getting into an argument.
We are at least entitled to clarification of this.
The Deputy has been allowed more than the usual number of supplementary questions.
There are five questions here and we have not even touched on whether this Government——
Order, please. I am calling the next question.
There is just one other point that needs clarification. What advice have the Government given to the President in the context of what reply he should give to the letter he received from President Carter on 20 January, or does it still remain unreplied to?
The Taoiseach received the letter, and a number of our European collegues have not replied to it either. Basically, this matter has been reserved and our decision stands reserved.
If the situation in Afghanistan remains as it is today will the Government advise as to whether or not we should participate?
That is a hypothetical question, the Minister may not answer it.
There is nothing hypothetical about it.
The Chair has ruled that it is. I am getting enough of this nonsense. I am calling Deputy Barry.
Most of it is emanating from there.
Is it not true that, if games are held in Moscow at which all the countries of the world except the nine EEC countries participate, they could be termed meaningful games, but we will not be there?
That is hypothetical.
It is not.
It is related to what may or may not happen.
It should be obvious to the Deputy——
Will the Minister answer my question?
I am not allowed to.
Is it not true that there will be meaningful games and we will not be present? Meaningful games have nothing to do with a political decision.
It has everything to do with it. In practice that is what it is all about. Naturally, the Community countries will not recommend that Community athletes go if more than half the world are not sending their athletes to the Olympic Games in Moscow. There would not then be meaningful Olympic Games.
What is the meaning of "meaningful"?
Commonsense.
The Minister's policy is "Never mind the policy, feel the width".
The Deputy would not be put in charge of an ass and cart.
At least we would know where the ass was going.
The remaining questions will appear on next Tuesday's Order Paper.
